Steve Milloy
10 bogus climate claims from September 2023 debunked here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steve Milloy
10 bogus climate claims from September 2023 debunked here.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thursday funny
Remember the researcher refusing to fly back to work?
“”Refusing to fly has lost me my job as a climate researcher. It’s a price worth paying”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/12/fly-climate-breakdown-germany-climate-change-papua-new-guinea
Presumably he has the funds to get back?
Having already proven to be a climate change liar or fraudster, ‘giaman’ in the local pidgin, he is at pains to be as much of a burden to his employer as he can possibly be. He will join the ranks of the unemployed and, no doubt, his employer has already replaced him from the multitude of, otherwise unemployable, climate activists. No loss.
Sounds like he’s going to need to find a new job. I’m not sure I would seek out a head hunter in Papua New Guinea.
ROFL 🤣
LOL, The Rascals will make short work of him.
John Kerry can pick him up as he whizzes around the globe spreading the message
He’s spreading something.
From the Guardian article:
“From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.”
************
No Gianluca, Guardian’s journalism operates in service to a religion — one that demands blind unquestioning faith. The faithful Guardians of the cult selectively cherry-pick their data to provide confirmation for the cult’s preconceived belief systems about the climate and environment. Either that, or they corrupt and distort it. Anything that opposes the faith is heresy and thoughtcrime. Being so intoxicated by your climate religion that you sacrifice your job is foolish and closed-minded.
As for the profit motive, like it or not, it is what makes the capitalist world go round. Yes, we humans are perfectly capable of thinking and acting collectively with little or no thought for ourselves when a situation demands it. Israelis no doubt are doing that right now, primarily because they have to. In the normal everyday business world however, we all do what we do because we all need a net income to survive, including corporations.
And that includes you Gianluca Grimalda. What you think is righteousness and virtuosity on your part could be described as arrogance and egotism by others — especially if you place yourself at what you think is level above everyone else who don’t agree with you on climate and other issues.
The road to Hell can be paved with good intentions Gianluca.
He probably feels great that he’s helped save the planet by not taking that flight.
They haven’t deleted all my comments in that article yet.
Guess even the Guardian is split over this one.
Station temperatures and UAH Satellite temperatures are like comparing apples to oranges. It does not make any sense to draw any comparisons between the two.
He does appear to be senseless.
It. Damn.
Doubtless they’ve given it a gender!
So… now we don’t like the satellite data?
As an aside, does anyone know how the temperature.global index is calculated? Their website says nothing at all about their methodology.
“ So… now we don’t like the satellite data?”
There’s precious little of it, nowhere near enough for your purposes.
So, just to make sure we’re clear: you believe that the surface station temperature indexes are more robust than the satellite datasets?
They are different measurements dude. It has nothing to with how robust each one is.
Why d’you reckon that Milloy said, “Which temperature data is more accurate? NASA admits the surface stations are.”
The surface temperature record after suitable shaking and baking, is more alarmist. So of course it’s the one the politicians who run NASA prefer.
Is Steven Milloy a politician running NASA?
He is saying what NASA said.
The surface station data is GREAT FOR PROPAGANDA.
You are legless, yet again. !
You must be getting lessons from Nick. Your attempts at dissembling are not as embarrassing as they used to be.
““Which temperature data is more accurate? NASA admits the surface stations are.””
Because NASA climate dept have to rely on the massively corrupted surface data to continue their AGW scam . !
If you read NASA’s comments , they actually ADMIT that the surface temperature are URBAN temperatures.
“they directly measure the temperature where people reside.”
ie they are NOT GLOBAL.
You really should read what is being said, to avoid corroborating everything I have said.
You are sinking deeper and deeper into your little quicksand lair
“You really should read what is being said . . . .”
I’ve noticed that Mr. J has poor reading comprehension. Either he’s doing it deliberately, or his reading skills aren’t that good.
What does AlanJ think?
I agree with NASA, but that’s easy for me to do since I don’t cling to wild conspiracy theories about the org. I’m just surprised that Milloy is confessing that the surface station network is more robust than satellite temp estimates.
One cannot help but wonder if the change in temperament is happening because of the recent large anomalies reported by UAH.
Surface stations? No
So you’d disagree with Steve Milloy and you’d say the satellite data, showing September 2023 as the hottest in the record, is more robust than any surface station index?
Unlike the climate alarmists, we are permitted to disagree with things published.
Certainly far more likely to be correct than the surface data fabrications of GISS et al.
They are based on massive urban warming and airport. and combine with the agenda-driven adjustments, have absolutely zero probability of giving a real idea of global temperature changes over time.
UAH has responded to an El Nino with a brief spike….. as it usually does…
.. but as that El Nino subsides, so will the atmospheric temperature.
There is a very high probablity that The HT volcano and other ocean seismic activity has also added energy to the oceans and atmosphere.
Certainly, there is no evidence of any human causation in this latest El Nino spike.
See what I mean. It was posted, therefore we all must pledge allegiance to the conclusions drawn in the paper.
“Their website says nothing at all about their methodology.”
It wouldn’t surprise me that they are averaging 1. and 0. pairs.
“As an aside, does anyone know how the temperature.global index is calculated? ”
If I was being cynical I might wonder if they were just averaging every station since the start. It would explain why there are wild swings at the start, but everything is converging to an average in the last few years.
The also give every years as degrees below normal, without any indication of what they consider normal.
I’m going to guess that that is precisely what they’re doing, and they’re also using datasets that are not necessarily congruous without significant work (usually a separate land and ocean index are compiled and then combined), so it’s really critical to understand exactly what they’ve done.
I see that AJ still has trouble processing the fact that WUWT is not an echo chamber. It publishes posts from many perspectives.
He’s still used to his alarmist sites where management only permits posts that support the narrative.
He believes that because this piece was posted, therefore this is what we all believe.
I’m just curious about what folks here believe. Up until the last couple of months there seemed to be boundless enthusiasm for the satellite products, and nothing but scorn for the surface temperature datasets. Now WUWT is endorsing a statement by Steve Milloy claiming that the surface temperature datasets are robust and way better than the satellites, so I’m wondering if others share the sentiment.
Endorsing? Not really. Highlighting a statement made and inviting informed comments is not an endorsement of either of the datasets mentioned. Similarly, although WUWT has mentioned (often) both datasets in previous articles, commenters have been free to criticise or discuss the advantages and shortcomings of the datasets without fear or favour. Or do you prefer the kind of website that only has articles on ‘approved’ subjects, supresses all others and censors comments that don’t agree with the ‘approved’ narrative?
Was that a rhetorical question?
I think it probably was, don’t you? I’m certainly not expecting him to answer that one!
You really do believe that words mean what you want them to believe.
Publishing a paper is not endorsing.
Now if you want to quite trying to be obstructionist and actually talk about whether the paper is valid or not, be my guest.
If all you want to do is to tell other people what they believe, then the rest of us will continue to ridicule your cluelessness.
You have deliberately twisted what is being said.
Steve Milloy knows that the NASA fabrications are rife with urban warming and airport spurious warming.
Temperature.global uses far more data
NOAA Global METARs
NOAA One-Minute Observations (OMOs)
NBDC Global Buoy Reports
MADIS Mesonet Data
And does not FAKE it with stupid agenda-driven adjustments.
It is also too short to be affected by warming by urban expansion.
The result, like whenever the temperature is measured anywhere near scientifically…
… is NOT MUCH WARMING, if any.. !
It is interesting that it didn’t pick up the El Nino atmospheric spike that UAH did.
You obviously know more about Temperature.global than I do. Could you explain how they actually calculate the global temperature?
Yes, I wish the math were published. So few people understand it the danger to them is minimal. For goodness sakes it’s not even my field, I just like math.
You could actually look at the web site.
Do you want me to spoon feed you.
Change your forever wet nappy as well ?
Do you know of some top secret part of site that actually explains what they do with the data? Or do you just assume it must be accurate because you like the results?
This is the entirety of the description of their process.
Both data sets have their problems. Without defining what is meant by “best,” it is difficult to make a judgement, particularly out of context. Your behavior suggests that you don’t really care as long as there is what you perceive to be a scab to pick at.
“Both data sets have their problems.”
Agreed. Which is why I think you need to look at and compare different data sets rather than just focus on the one that best proves your point.
It’s just that a few years back it was a persistent cry here that satellite data was vastly superior, and anyone claiming otherwise could be labelled a “satellite denier”.
Reading the whole article aids comprehension:
“Reminder: Regardless of data set used to calculate it, “average global temperature” is not an actual
physical metric. It is a flawed notion contrived by and for global warming alarmism. Its “calculation” is
fraught with problems. We only discuss it because the alarmists do.”
Bravo
And Noddy the clown rears its little head again
The surface data is manifestly corrupted by urban warming, airport effects and agenda-driven mal-manipulations.
It is totally impossible for it to give a realistic view of global temperatures.
So why quote it in order to disprove the UAH record? As always it seems to be OK to use any data, as long as it tells you what you want to hear.
Still in DENIAL that the GISS et al surface data is meaningless for climate purposes.
So DUMB !!
“So why quote it in order to disprove the UAH record”
Where did I do that… in the back of your rancid little brain?
Temperature.Global uses far more consistent data, and is too short to have been corrupted much by urban and airport data.
It is interesting , but not surprising, that it hasn’t responded to the atmospheric warming caused by the current El Nino like UAH TLT data has..
Now…
Why are you spending so much time on deceit and lies trying in vain to support an agenda who’s stated aims are the destruction of western society ?
What sort of deceitful, ugly, agenda do you have ?
Please try to read the comment thread before beginning one of your pathetic rants.
The surface data being used to refute UAH was that abysmal Temperature.global.
I didn’t say you used it, I said this fact checking site did.
You might be right about Temperature.global being contaminated, given that they use adjusted data – but as you still won’t link to where they describe their methods, who knows?
“It is interesting , but not surprising, that it hasn’t responded to the atmospheric warming caused by the current El Nino like UAH TLT data has.”
Which “iT2 do you mean. If it is Temperature.global then yes, that is telling. If it means any other surface data set, then they all seem to be showing pretty similar spikes as the satellite data. Of course most of them don;t include September yet, but BEST has reported September as beating the previous September record by 0.5°C. Very similar to the UAH data for September.
The ground based network is hopelessly corrupted and the number of sensors is inadequate by 2 to 4 orders of magnitude, even today. It gets worse as you go back in time.
Some of the climate realists will use these data sets, but only to show the alarmists that the data sets don’t prove what you want them to prove.
Number of sensors doesn’t matter. You can’t average them all together and come up with anything physically meaningful. Temperature is an intensive property.
“Temperature is an intensive property.”
Yes! But Mr. Mosher (and Mr. Stokes) thinks that you can average intensive properties, because you can average colors–whatever that means.
Someone picked the word “admits”. It is a psychological opposite of “claims”.
Choosing one of the other word establishes the writer’s point of view.
“In contrast, the Temperature.global compilation of actual temperature measurements from surface
stations has September only slightly warmer than the average monthly temperature of the past 8 years and 9 months, and far from the warmest month since January 2015.”
Not sure if there’s much point reading after that.
Unless someone will actually explain how Temperature.global works, why would anyone trust it’s values that have no relation to any serious data set, satellite or surface?
Still it’s good to see agreement that temperatures from surface instruments are more reliable than from satellites.
“We’ll close out this month’s Climate Fact Check with new analysis from Drs. Roy Spencer and
John Christy at the University of Alabama-Huntsville about the urban heat island effect (UHIE), ”
Oh, the irony.
Now the bellboy is DENIAL of the Urban Warming Effect, despite it being massive and measurable.
Is there any real measured science you won’t deny to maintain your support of the evil agenda trying to bring down western society ?
“”temperatures from surface instruments are more reliable than from satellites.””
What would you do without UHI?
Plus contamination of the site itself.
Plus undocumented maintenance.
Plus undocumented changes around the site.
Plus undocumented location changes for many sites.
Plus hugely inadequate coverage, getting worse as you go back in time.
Anyone who believes that the ground based system tells us anything worth knowing about the global climate, is probably paid to believe that.
You got that right! I was just checking the weather forecast at Weather Underground and it said it was 74 degrees outside. I looked at my weather station display (set up in my back yard) and it said it was 69. Weather Underground gave me the option to change weather stations, and it showed a list of about 15 different ones in my town. The temps ran the gamut from 67 degrees all the way up to 77 degrees!
Now how on earth can anyone draw any meaningful conclusion about which ones are the “right” readings and which to use or not use?
Worse yet, the local news channels always use a weather station that runs much higher that most of them and thus gives false readings. If temps in Baltimore are at 95 degrees, then this small rural town reads the same or higher – NOT! Especially when my own back yard weather station says it is only 89 degrees here….Clearly the weather station the local news uses is messed up and badly sited.
Take a look at this image from a local TV station. What’s the *true* temperature for northeast Kansas?
42.
69 +/-3 with ~95% probability
What’s the *true* temperature? LTE is a joke, so the temperatures in the display are nonsense. But if you could accept these temps as valid, then the temp would be roughly 68 +/- 7.
There’s also the issue with going from older mercury or alcohol glass thermometers with response times on the order of 10 to 20 minutes (for the better ones). To modern electronic thermometers with response times on the order of a second or less.
How do those changes impact the temperatures recorded? Do any of the alarmists know? Do any of them care?
Beyond that is the fact that prior to the installation of the electronic instruments, all we have recorded is a daily minimum and maximum. Now we have the capability to record temperatures every few seconds, if the operators wanted to.
So how does a daily minimum and maximum, regardless of when those events occur, compare to modern records where recordings can be made every 60/20/10 minutes in terms of calculating a daily average? Do any of the alarmists know? Do any of them care?
Of course merely asking these questions proves that I’m just a science denier. After all, every good alarmists know that none of their scientists would ever lie, or even shade the truth a little. So to believe in science, you must accept what their scientists say without question.
If you dare to point out that there are scientists who disagree with the so called climate scientists, they will shriek that everyone who disagrees with their scientists must be in the pay of the oil companies, or for some reason wants the world to die. Which means they aren’t scientists and must therefor be ignored.
Since the ground based temperatures are worthless, then that means there is no reliable method for determining what the planet’s temperature actually is.
I thought we knew this from the beginning of this CC/AGW nonsense.
We did, but there are some who just won’t give up on their fantasies.
“Since the ground based temperatures are worthless, then that means there is no reliable method for determining what the planet’s temperature actually is.”
And that in a sentence, is why the term “climate science denier” is so apt for people like MarkW. There is no phrase that captures his position on the topic so well. All he has to do to justify his simplistic thinking is say “the data is not to be trusted.” That’s despite the fact that all the major global data sets pretty much agree with each other, including the up until now holy UAH. What a lovely world it must be for him.
“. . . all the major global data sets pretty much agree with each other . . . .”
I captured a temp dataset over a decade ago. Compared to the current “same” dataset, the past temperatures were modified downward and the more recent temperatures were modified upward. I guess when you change the data, they can agree with anything–even a phone book.
All the adjustments are explained. The problem skeptics have is that they can’t counter any of the data, so they resort to comments like Marks. There have been two attempts I know of (I’m sure there are more) by skeptic teams to prove the data is false or tampered with and both failed. One, the “Best” effort that Anthony Watts was going to embrace (till he saw the result) and the other by the GWPF, and that one came to nothing. Till skeptics can seriously counter the data, they will be left making the kind of childish comments Mark just made.
“All the adjustments are explained.”
It’s usually explained by hand waving. Isn’t it interesting that the adjustments are always in one direction–warmer?
“It’s usually explained by hand waving. Isn’t it interesting that the adjustments are always in one direction–warmer?”
You going to hang your hat on that? I can provide many adjustments that were down. Just say the word?
“You going to hang your hat on that? I can provide many adjustments that were down. Just say the word?”
Okay. Compare all the adjustments that were down with all the adjustments that were up. I bet the set size of upward adjustments greatly exceeds the set size of downward adjustments. The few downward adjustments are there to give you a talking point.
“Okay. Compare all the adjustments that were down with all the adjustments that were up.”
This is an excellent article. It explains adjustments and you can see some are up and some are down. But the critical point is that if you don’t adjust at all, then you end up with data that says the world is “warmer.” That’s right, all those naughty adjustments actually cool the world.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/
That’s not all adjustments, but you must forgive my old brain cells. I’ve compared unmodified temperature curves with modified temperature curves. They are rotated to show more warming. So actually they do modify temperatures downward. It’s the ones in the past. The ones in the present are warmer–or the curves wouldn’t look rotated.
ROFLMAO.
They made an adjustment after MANY other adjustments.
And you are so gullible, you far for it… Hilarious.
The graphs are still TOTALLY FAKE. !
They are NOT comparing to raw data, but to a previous version of their corrupted surface fabrications.
If it is from CarbonBrief.. you KNOW it is a twisted deceitful attempt to con their simple and gullible followers…
… but you are the only one being conned.. !
What color was the grass at Forbes AFB in Topeka in March, 2023? What color is it today? What’s the difference in the heights of the grass then and now?
Microclimate is a huge contributor to the measurement uncertainty of a temperature measuring station. Hubbard and Lin found this out clear back on 2002, over 20 years ago!
Were the readings at Forbes AFB adjusted for changes in the microclimate?
Which temperature is the correct temperature for NE KS in today’s plot of various measuring stations?
And all the explanations have been refuted.
The problem with alarmists is that they refuse to acknowledge any data or argument that refutes what they want to believe
As to BEST, the problems with that have been explained, it’s just that you can’t accept any criticism of what you want to believe.
BTW, I hope you don’t start charging rent for all the time I get to spend in your brain.
When two different climates can give the very same daily mid-range temperature value how do you assess the climate each represents?
Even if there were no adjustments, the way the data is used is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!
All the adjustments are fabricated.. they are BOGUS and unwarranted.
All the major data sets are based on the same data that is manifestly tainted over time by urban warming, shifts to airport sites, agenda-drive-maladjustments.
There is absolutely ZERO PROBABILITY that anything they invent/manufacture could be remotely realistic in terms of global temperature changes over time.
And here you see the difference between a climate realist and a climate alarmist.
I look at the data and draw my own conclusions. Simon on the other hand just echoes whatever he’s told to believe.
I’ve listed above a few of the reasons why the ground based temperature network is simply not capable of generating an accurate average temperature for the whole planet.
Rather than actually deal with the issues I’ve raised, Simon just resorts to juvenile name calling. Then again, that’s all he’s ever done.
Simon seems to think that because heavily cooked databases all manage to support the narrative, therefor they must be good.
“Simon seems to think that because heavily cooked databases all manage to support the narrative, therefor they must be good.”
See link above. the adjustments actually cool the planet. Explain that?
Notice the subtle adjustment to increasing warmth. Explain that.
The adjustments that cool the planet, quite conveniently, were all in the past, making the over all trend look worse.
Do you get quantity discounts on your kool-aide purchases?
Again, because you are too gullible to understand reality.
That is a FAKED adjustments between two FAKED fabrications.
It is totally meaningless.
And it actually increased the trend since the 1970s.. exactly as required by the AGW scammers.
All the major data sets are based on the same data that is manifestly tainted over time by urban warming, shifts to airport sites, agenda-drive-maladjustments.
There is absolutely ZERO PROBABILITY that anything they invent/manufacture could be remotely realistic in terms of global temperature changes over time.
If the upward and downward adjustments of the data were to be randomly distributed throughout the entirety of the record, then they could possibly be defensible.
They aren’t, and it isn’t.
The way the data is used is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!
Even if the data from all stations were 100% accurate the way it is used makes it useless.
Take the daily mid-range temperature calculated from Tmax and Tmin. Two different climates can give you the very same mid-range value. That makes that mid-range value useless for assessing climate!
Then that not fit for purpose mid-range value is averaged over and over and over up the chain till you get to a “global” average temperature which is supposed to be an index for the global climate! It starts off bad and never gets better!
Never a computation of variance in the data at any point, not at the individual station, not at the regional level, and certainly not at the global level. Without the variance what good is the average? Even for a perfect Gaussian distribution the average alone tells you NOTHING, you need at least the variance as well! Again, NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!
The simpleton returns for another lesson in reality…. How quaint
All the major data sets are based on the same data that is manifestly tainted over time by urban warming, shifts to airport sites, agenda-drive-maladjustments.
There is absolutely ZERO PROBABILITY that anything they invent/manufacture could be remotely realistic in terms of global temperature changes over time.
UAH has responds to an El Nino, but before that it was COOLING.
Are you saying that El Ninos are the only cause of warming?
If so, that means there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human causation.
Who said one was more reliable than the other. They are two different measurement methods. Extrapolating that to mean one is more reliable is a fools errand.
Well this “fact check” implies it – as long as satellite data is showing record temperatures, then any surface data that claims to show temperatures are only slightly warmer will be held to be more accurate, no matter how dubious the data.
There you go worshiping the El Nino again.. The ONLY WARMING
You do realise that the atmosphere responds more to El Ninos than the surface stations, don’t you.
The real question is..
Why are you spending so much time on deceit and lies trying in vain to support an agenda who’s stated aims are the destruction of western society ?
What sort of despicable agenda cause you to do that.?
“You do realise that the atmosphere responds more to El Ninos than the surface stations, don’t you.”
Yet your preferred surface data set shows the peak in 2016 as being 1.5°C warmer than whatever 30 year base period they use. UAH only peaked at 0.7°C above the 1991-2020 average.
And El Nino spike.
Thanks for proving there is NO HUMAN CAUSATION. !!
And the surface data you are referring to is much more consistent than just land thermometers. (ie , it is not GISS et al which are total fabrications.)
Continue your ignorance, its disgusting to watch your pathetic attempts to shore up your support for an evil anti-human agenda that wants to destroy western society.
Why continue to do that ???
What is in it for you ?
temperature.global ….
That shit is a joke. There’s no way people are taking that seriously.
Sadly, the fact is that too many are taking it seriously.
It’s hard to tell which ones take it seriously, and which ones use them merely because they match what they want to believe.
Where I live in Kansas, the local news media persist in talking about the record hot summer. First of all, it has not been anywhere near a record summer anywhere nearby. Second, the airport, where the official temperatures are recorded, is surrounded by an increasing number of giant warehouses, office buildings and hotels. It used to be out in the country. Not so much now. And finally, the “record” that is the most trumpeted is a calculated heat index for Lawrence, Kansas, back in July or August–that was calculated to be 134 degrees F. The actual temperature was much lower–maybe 100F–and definitely not a record.
It is just scare tactics all the way around, and many people are not sophisticated and knowledgeable to see that.
Take heart – it is the same here on the opposite side of the globe in Auckland, New Zealand. I wonder how such diverse media-exponents always manage to believe the activists’ version?
“The fake global warming statistic “average global temperature” for Summer 2023 was
boosted upward by an unusually strong Antarctic heat wave, an event that is now detected by
satellites.”
According to UAH data, it was a record summer in the Northern Hemisphere, 0.26°C warmer than the previous record from 1998.
In contrast, the South Pole was only the 13th warmest June-August period, 0.91°C below the warmest year.
And these records of which you speak began when?
Long enough a go to prove the point. The hot summer was not the result of unusually strong Antarctic heat.
“”Long enough “”
Congratulations on being the joker of the day
Obviously the point is going over your head. The claimed “fact check” is that the record breaking global summer temperatures were “boosted” by unusual Antarctic heat. The UAH data disproves that “check”.
Most of the NH heat was over Germany and NE EU.
It was due to an equal record number of sunshine days caused by a blocking high.
Do you understand the term WEATHER ???
The other warm areas were above northern Canada and in the mid upper Atlantic Ocean…. let’s all PANIC !!
And yet, still way COOLER than most of the last 10,000 years.
So not the Antarctic. Keep going, if you dismiss everywhere that was hot I’m sure you can claim that this was a colder than average summer.
You can try to come up with explanations why it was so hot – nobody knows at this point, but the amount of panic in all your comments doesn’t help to understand anything.
It would help if you actually showed the map for summer months rather than September. Here’s the GISS map for the summer.
Again, using data that YOU KNOW is massively corrupted by urban and other problems, including agenda-driven malfeaces.
Why be so deceitful in your pathetic attempt to support and agenda that wants to bring down western society.
What sort of low-life does that !
And no, it isn’t “so hot”… It is still well below the Holocene norm, barely a degree or so above the coldest period in 10.000 years.
The heavily adjusted data matches (sort of) the models, so how could it possibly be wrong? /sarc
One might similarly ask why this year’s ‘ozone hole,’ which is usually attributed to photocatalytic destruction of ozone on ice crystals in very cold stratosphere altitudes, formed early this year, with one of the largest extents seen, and very low ozone concentrations.
I’m sure there are lots of questions about this summer and ongoing temperatures. It will probably be studied and debated for years to come, and hopefully will lead to a better understanding of climate.
Or you can just do what some commentators here do, and just assert that all the data sets are wrong.
Based on a El Nino spike. No human causation.
You keep proving that.
Certainly the surface data fabrications are totally unfit for anything to do with climate or science..
Useful only for mindless anti-science propaganda…
… which is, of course why you keep using them despite being well aware of that fact.
Again.. Why are you continuing to support an evil, deceitful, lying, concocted agenda that wants to destroy western society !!
Assertions, accompanied by data. Lots and lots of data.
Yes it formed slightly early and peaked at about 90% of the range, it has since dropped fairly rapidly to about the 50% value for the date. The ozone concentration has shown a similar pattern.
“The UAH data disproves that “check”.”
WRONG !.. By ignorance… or just flat out LYING !
As I showed elsewhere. Antarctic carries significant extra warmth in all three months.
Poor bnice2000 still doesn’t get that the Antarctic is not in the Northern Hemisphere.
For the benefit of anyone else. The sole point I am making is to refute the “fact check” made in this article, which is implying that possibly the only reason we had a record breaking summer in the global data was becasue it was less cold in the Antarctic. They argue that as we only know the anomaly in the Antarctic is because of satellite data and so previous years before the satellite era might have had a hotter summer which we missed because we were not including a possible very hot Antarctic in the average.
I refute that by pointing out that even if you ignore the part of the world that includes the Antarctic, you still have a record breaking summer, either in the satellite or surface data.
It is NOT hot compared to the last 10,000 years.. it is still very much on the COOL side
Perhaps you can explain how much warmer it must have been for forests to have growth where now there were glaciers?
Get some perspective, and stop supporting this EVIL, DECEITFUL agenda that is trying to destroy western society.
173 years, that’s meaningless. Instead of going back 173 to the bottom of the Little Ice Age, why not go back 1000 years to the top of the Medieval Warm Period. Do that any you will get a solid downward trend.
We have proxies that go back 10’s of thousands of years. We have other proxies that go back millions of years.
All of these records show definitevely that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Well,the ice cores show that there is a correlation. Except, the temperature change precedes the rise in CO2 by 800 – 1000 years. What’s really interesting, is that as the temperatures falls, CO2 hangs back and finally falls at about half the rate of the temperature drop. If CO2 controls the temperature, why is CO2 higher when temperature is dropping?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
Why do you need to go back thousands of years just to see that this Northern Hemisphere Summer’s temperature was not just the result of it being warmer in the Antarctic?
“Instead of going back 173 to the bottom of the Little Ice Age, why not go back 1000 years to the top of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Because we have neither satellite data or instrument records that far back.
“Do that any you will get a solid downward trend.”
People will insist that it’s impossible to know what the trend is in the satellite era because of the uncertainty in satellite data, yet have no problem knowing how much warmer it was 1000 years back.
“We have proxies that go back 10’s of thousands of years.”
All of which will never be as good as actual temperature readings.
“All of these records show definitevely that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.”
What’s that got to do with anything? The question is how unusual this summer was, not what caused it.
And you can not show “definitevely” that there is no correlation.
And you cannot show there is any correlation whatsoever.
Nor can you produce a single piece of scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming.
All your tiny mind can do is DENY proxy evidence that the planet was probably several degrees warmer during most of the Holocene.
DENIAL of science is all you have to hide your ugly support of the AGW agenda.
You can believe in your childish little fairytales…
Doesn’t mean anyone else has to.
Classic Goal post moving a sign that you have no counterpoint to offer yet you HYPOCRITICALLY use PISS!! the worse and most manipulated temperature database.
The goal posts are exactly where they where at the start of this thread – fact checking the suggestion that this years summer temperatures are only a record because of the unusual “warmth” of the Antaractic.
So instead of using all the data, you are only going to use the portion that suits your purpose.
I’m trying to decide if you are this bad a scientist, or this bad a sophist.
You really don’t understand what uncertainty intervals are, do you.
Saying that we don’t know what the Earth’s temperature is, to 0.01C, is not the same as saying we have no idea what the Earth’s temperature is.
Agreed, but it is still data, data which disagrees with the conclusion you want to reach.
Already done so.
“Saying that we don’t know what the Earth’s temperature is, to 0.01C, is not the same as saying we have no idea what the Earth’s temperature is.”
Nobody claims we know the anomaly to 0.01°C, let alone the temperature. Uncertainties are generally given as something like 0.05 – 0.1°C. What some here claim is that the uncertainties are greater than 1 or 2°C, and claim it’s impossible to know if the temperature has warmed or cooled over the last century or so.
“Agreed, but it is still data, data which disagrees with the conclusion you want to reach.”
What data? And what conclusions do you think they contradict?
“Already done so.”
Show your workings. How are you “definitevely” showing there is zero correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?
“Nobody claims we know the anomaly to 0.01°C . . . .”
Finally we have the correct term for climate alarmists: “nobodies.”
If nobody claims that we know the temperature to 0.01C, then why do you keep using data that shows temperature out to hundredths of a degree?
So you don’t know what data is? Why am I not surprised? I’ve already shown you how it disproves your beliefs.
Look at the data. If you can bring yourself to view anything you disagree with.
Measurement uncertainty is a foreign concept to statisticians. All of their training assumes that all data is 100% accurate out to as many digits as their calculator can handle. Significant digits don’t apply. All measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels.
Just keep lying. I’m sure many here will believe you
” why do you keep using data that shows temperature out to hundredths of a degree?”
Not this nonsense again. Regardless of what the uncertainty is it’s better to have too much information than not enough. Rounding everything to the nearest 10th of a degree is just throwing away useful information and will result in rounding errors. If you want to know what the claimed uncertainty is, look at the claimed uncertainty. Not at how many decimal places are used.
“So you don’t know what data is?”
I know what “data” is. I’m asking you what specific data you are using when you say it disproves my believes. It would also be helpful if you stated what you think those beliefs are.
“Not this nonsense again. Regardless of what the uncertainty is it’s better to have too much information than not enough.”
I wonder if I could have used this argument every time my engineering profs took off points for my answers having too many significant figures.
He demonstrates (again) with this line that he still has no idea what uncertainty is—he thinks it is possible to extract information that isn’t there, like as getting a sharp image from an unfocused optical microscope by averaging multiple images.
averaging multiple UNFOCUSED images.
Climate scientists and statisticians have crystal balls that tells them whatever they want to know.
He actually made this claim, but just now he did a quick backpedal, surprise.
What claim are you claiming I claimed? An exact quote and link.
As far as I’m aware, averaging multiple photos can be used to reduce noise, and increase resolution. You might for all I know be able to reduce the effects of random focusing issues, but I doubt you could use it to remove a constant focusing problem. It’s the old issue of random verses systematic errors.
How do you use multiple, out-of-focus pictures to reduce “noise”? How do you increase resolution using multiple, out-of-focus pictures?
If you have two out-of-focus pictures of 1920 x 1440 pixel resolution how do you create a third picture with more than 1920 x 1440 pixels?
“How do you use multiple, out-of-focus pictures to reduce “noise”? How do you increase resolution using multiple, out-of-focus pictures?”
Read what I said – not what you want to believe. I said you couldn’t bring an out of focus set of pictures into focus by averaging. What you can do is reduce noise in a set of pictures by averaging. If the pictures are all out of focus the average will still be out of focus, but if they are in focus then they will be less noisy.
Here a few random examples found on the web.
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-averaging-noise.htm
https://photographylife.com/image-averaging-technique
https://iwillbeyourphotoguide.com/reduce-noise-median-averaging-photos/
And here’s an article about increasing resolution using multiple images
https://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-practical-guide-to-creating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/
“Much more than a few carefully placed keystrokes, superresolution is both a shooting technique and a post processing method and there are limitations in its application. It’s not very suitable for moving subjects. Because of this limitation, it’s best for static scenes like landscape photography or certain studio/product photography.”
Temperature is a moving subject. It doesn’t work very well for moving things. If you read further into the article you’ll find that the super-resolution is done by taking multiple measurements of the same thing – once again that doesn’t apply to field temperature measurements of different things.
You’ve just been caught cherry-picking again!
The speed with which you can move these goal posts is quite breath taking.
There isn’t any moving of the goalposts. I merely quoted to you what you should have bothered to read! Your cherry-picking always gets you in trouble. The real issue is your inability to SEE the goalposts.
The goalposts moved from you insisting that you couldn’t reduce noise by averaging photos, to you saying you couldn’t apply that technique to averaging temperatures.
From your first reference: “If you were to take two shots of a smooth gray patch, using the same camera settings and under identical conditions (temperature, lighting, etc.), then you would obtain images similar to those shown on the left.”
This is the same thing as taking multiple measurements of the same thing using the same device under the same environmental conditions.
How many temperature measurements meet this restriction?
The other links state the same thing: “You take a bunch of photos with the exact same settings”
As usual, you can’t relate to the real world at all.
And even after four cherry-picked refs, it still isn’t possible to extract information that isn’t there, that is too small to see.
“How many temperature measurements meet this restriction?”
What’s that got to do with taking photos. We are not photographing temperatures.
Estimating a global temperature anomaly is not the same thing as improving the resolution of a photo.
It was your analogy, not mine.
You are on a site whose main theme is discussing climate. The title of this thread is “Climate Fact Check”.
You bring up photography in order to try and imply the same thing could be done with the “global temperature”.
And now you are whining that you weren’t talking about temperature?
TROLL ALERT!
“You bring up photography”
It was karlo who bought the subject up.
and you responded
You only need to scroll up a few comments to see this.
*YOU* are the one that asserted you could increase detail and resolution by averaging. Then as proof you gave us links to how it’s done in photography.
None of the links show how to increase detail in unfocused observations, only how to reduce noise. None of them show how to increase resolution in photo’s of different things, in fact they state that you can’t do so!
I’ll say it again – your ability to relate to the real world is atrocious. It’s based on your trying to cherry-pick things without understanding any of the context surrounding those things. You refuse to actually *study* anything to learn the basics. You continually confuse multiple measurements of the same thing with multiple measurements of different things. And then you tie yourself in knots trying to rationalize your assertions which require them to be the same statistically.
“Averaging” is your religion – it knows all, sees all, hears all, heals all, ….
“None of the links show how to increase detail in unfocused observations, only how to reduce noise”
Which is exactly what I was telling you. You probably can’t increase detail in a series of unfocused photos, but you can reduce noise.
“None of them show how to increase resolution in photo’s of different things”
Why on earth would you want to do that? What would an increased resolution of a series of different things mean?
“I’ll say it again – your ability to relate to the real world is atrocious.”
More personal insults. I’d say this is a sign you know you’ve lost the argument, but maybe it’s just your personality.
“You continually confuse multiple measurements of the same thing with multiple measurements of different things.”
I’ll have to keep repeating this – you and karlo were the ones who brought up the idea of averaging multiple out of focus pictures. It’s because they would all be the same that averaging would have no effect. If you want to increase resolution by averaging you have to ensure that all the images are slightly different.
““Averaging” is your religion – it knows all, sees all, hears all, heals all, ….”
You’ve clearly never taken any notice of anything I’ve actually said.
Correct, I brought up his former nonsense claim that averaging could be used to gain information from an UNfocused optical microscope, that isn’t there.
Its obvious he’s never actually used a real optical microscope.
And I asked when I said that. Maybe I did, and was mistaken, or maybe just maybe you are making it up. Give the exact quote and context.
Nope – the information is there, it’s just uncertain. Say you’re best estimate of an anomaly is 0.46°C, with an uncertainty of 0.10°C. How does it help to be told the value is 0.5 ± 0.1°C, rather than 0.46 ± 0.10°C?
Why do you think the metrology books keep saying you should include an extra digit to avoid rounding errors? What would be the point of avoiding rounding errors if the extra digit contains no information?
“like as getting a sharp image from an unfocused optical microscope by averaging multiple images.”
i doubt that would work if there is a systematic focus problem, but you can certainly do that to reduce noise in the images.
“Nope – the information is there, it’s just uncertain.”
Translation: “I have no idea, but I want to make things up.”
“Why do you think the metrology books keep saying you should include an extra digit to avoid rounding errors?”
You can’t avoid rounding errors. It’s the nature of the beast. The extra digit is to reduce the rounding error which isn’t always possible. But Mr. Gorman and Mr.(?) karlomonte are exactly correct–the extra digit goes away immediately. To continue to include it is–well, the “f” word comes to mind.
“Nope – the information is there, it’s just uncertain”
The information is *NOT* there. It is UNKNOWN. Go look up the definition of unknown. Then write UNKNOWN 100 times on a piece of paper. Maybe it will sink in.
If I give you a latitude and longitude on Mars can you tell me the composition of the surface of Mars at that point? It is not just uncertain, it is unknown. How can you tell me what the unknown is?
“Why do you think the metrology books keep saying you should include an extra digit to avoid rounding errors?”
Why do you think they tell you that you must drop that extra digit in the final answer?
“What would be the point of avoiding rounding errors if the extra digit contains no information?”
Once again, you didn’t even bother to think about the subject before you posted this, did you? You didn’t bother to go read Taylor at all, did you? You round off *after* the calculations and you round off to the same decimal place as the uncertainty. That’s because you don’t actually know what the value is after the uncertainty decimal place!
You are confusing final statement of a measurement with the interim calculations done to determine that final answer. Stating that the temperature is +0.11 when the uncertainty is +/- 0.1 is stating a final answer, not an interim calculation. You simply don’t know what the value of the hundredths digit actually is, it could be any digit from 0 to 9 The proper stated final answer would be 0.1 +/- 0.1 degC.
“Regardless of what the uncertainty is it’s better to have too much information than not enough. Rounding everything to the nearest 10th of a degree is just throwing away useful information and will result in rounding errors.”
You are not losing information, *YOU* are making up information that you cannot possibly know. Anything beyond the accuracy of the measurement, as specified in the measurement uncertainty, is UNKNOWN.
You *ONLY include one decimal point extra IN CALCULATING THE STATED VALUE so you *don’t get rounding errors. That extra digit is DROPPED in the final stated value. Including a value in the hundredths digit of the stated value means your accuracy is actually in the hundredths digit – an impossibility for temperature measurements whose accuracy, for any field measuring device I know of, is in the tenths digit!
Once again, you show that you have never bothered to actually study Taylor at all. His Rule 2.9: “The last siginficant figure in any stated answer should usually be of the same order of magnitude (in the same decimal position) as the uncertainty.
From his Chapter 2, Pg 16: “An important qualification to rules (2.5) and (2.9) is as follows: To reduce inaccuracies caused by rounnding, any numbers to be used in subsequent calculations should normally retain at least one significant figure more than is finally justified. At the end of the calculations, the final answer should be rounded to remove any extra, insignificant figures.”
Temperatures should always be truncated to the tenths digit if that is where the uncertainty interval is. Quoting the stated value out to the hundredths digit is not losing information. Quoting the stated value out to decimal places you can’t possibly know is creating information out of realm of the UNKNOWN. It is what carnival fortune tellers do when looking into a clouded crystal ball.
That seems to be what so many climate scientists and statisticians are – carnival fortune tellers making up information out of nothing, telling fortunes they can’t possibly know.
He will never understand this (or if he does, admit it).
ISO 17025/A2LA does not permit an accredited lab to report relative measurement uncertainties in the hundredths of a percent, they have to be rounded to the tenths of a percent. You can keep all the extra digits you like for intermediate calculations, but they cannot be reported to the customer. There is a reason for this restriction.
The essence of trendology.
“You are not losing information, *YOU* are making up information that you cannot possibly know.”
Again – it’s the best estimate. if 0.46 is your best estimate, then 0.5 is not your best estimate. You’ve just added 0.04 to the best estimate and increased the uncertainty.
“You *ONLY include one decimal point extra IN CALCULATING THE STATED VALUE so you *don’t get rounding errors. ”
How does that work if the extra digit is just made up? If the extra digit is just a random value why would you care about the rounding error – both results would be equally valid.
“That extra digit is DROPPED in the final stated value.”
And what if you want to use the final stated value in additional calculations?
“His Rule 2.9: “The last siginficant figure in any stated answer should usually be of the same order of magnitude (in the same decimal position) as the uncertainty.”
The uncertainty is 0.05°C, the stated answer should be to 2 decimal places.
“To reduce inaccuracies caused by rounnding, any numbers to be used in subsequent calculations should normally retain at least one significant figure more than is finally justified.”
And I’m always using the monthly averages in subsequent calculations – e.g to calculate the average summer temperature, or the trend over the last few years.
“Temperatures should always be truncated to the tenths digit if that is where the uncertainty interval is.”
If that’s what you want it’s trivial to take any data set produced to 2 or 3 or 100 decimal places and round to 1 decimal place. It’s impossible to reverse the process if the stated values are only given to 1 decimal place.
“if 0.46 is your best estimate, then 0.5 is not your best estimate.”
How do you know what your “best estimate” is? You’re supposed to use the greatest precision available to your instruments, and don’t play silly “increase the precision” games. What if your “best estimate” violates all the rules of scientific/engineering precision? I guess you’re claiming knowledge only God has.
“How do you know what your “best estimate” is?”
It’s your estimate, and if you had a better one you would use that instead.
Huh?
bellman lives in an academic fantasy world known as “statistician world”. It’s a world described in statistics textbooks where all data is 100% accurate, measurement uncertainty doesn’t exist. “Estimates”, known as “guesses” in the real world, are as accurate as you want them to be.
You don’t *estimate* measurements. That is the path to ruin, both criminally and civilly, in the cold, hard world of reality. Stating that that the average of a random, Gaussian set of data is the “best estimate” of the true value is deprecated. That’s what it was when Taylor started writing his book in 1980, 43 years ago. That’s why the GUM has moved away from “true value” and “error” today. Even for a random, Gaussian variable the true value may *not* be true value, especially if that data set is from measurements with systematic bias.
You live in a fantasy world I call “statistician’s world”. It’s no different than Eberron in the fantasy world of Dungeons and Dragons. It’s a fantasy world where measurement uncertainty doesn’t exist, all data is 100% accurate.
“Again – it’s the best estimate. if 0.46 is your best estimate, then 0.5 is not your best estimate.”
A measurement is not an estimate. If it was you wouldn’t bother measuring anything. You would just look at a 2″x4″ board and *estimate* it is 6′ long!
You are confusing “estimate” and “interpolation”. Measurements are interpolated between marks, they are not “estimated”.
If the precision of your measuring device is in the tenths digit then you don’t “estimate” to the hundredths digit. Once again, you are confusing what statisticians do when they assume no uncertainty is stated values with what metrology does.
You *do* realize that there was a reason why temperatures from LIG thermometers were recorded in the units digit, right? You’ve been told often enough. There is no reason whey the observations couldn’t have been “estimated” to the tenths digit – other than following basic measurement rules!
“How does that work if the extra digit is just made up”
Who says the extra digit is just made up? You are confusing actual measurements with calculations done from measurements. If I have measured the radius and height of a barrel then how do I find its volume? What happens to the calculation value? What happens to the uncertainty? Is the uncertainty of the volume less than the uncertainty of the components? What should the final “stated value +/- uncertainty” be? How many digits should the stated value have?
“The uncertainty is 0.05°C, the stated answer should be to 2 decimal places.”
EXACTLY what field temperature measurement device do you know of that has a measurement uncertainty of +/- 0.05C?
“And I’m always using the monthly averages in subsequent calculations – e.g to calculate the average summer temperature, or the trend over the last few years.”
But your FINAL answer should have no more decimal places than the uncertainty – which would be AT LEAST 0.5C!
“If that’s what you want it’s trivial to take any data set produced to 2 or 3 or 100 decimal places and round to 1 decimal place”
If that is what the uncertainty is, 1 decimal place, then it is what it is. Your final answer should have only one decimal place. The uncertainty of a final answer is ALWAYS determined by the measurement with the most uncertainty. Just like the precision of a final answer can be no more than the measurement with the least precision.
When you are dealing with reality you can’t just make things up that are part of the great UNKNOWN. What you make up is a GUESS. Guesses can have fatal results in reality. Forget your statistics textbooks that don’t address uncertainty, significant figures, accuracy, or precision. They simply don’t address the real world that so many of us actually live in. Data is not always 100% accurate, it always has uncertainty and that uncertainty must be handled is the appropriate manner – NO GUESSES AT THE VALUE OF THE UNKNOWN!
Of course, manufacturing “data” out of the ether is Standard Practice for climate science.
This mutual obsession is getting out of hand, and is not healthy for either of us. Another half dozen comments this morning, including this epic screed – full of personal abuse, and I’m not sure if it’s worth even reading through them at this point. But let’s take this one point –
“A measurement is not an estimate. If it was you wouldn’t bother measuring anything. You would just look at a 2″x4″ board and *estimate* it is 6′ long!”
You are confusing estimating with guessing. A measurement is an estimate – if it wasn’t it there would be no uncertainty. If you remember all the times you’ve studied your Taylor you would know that – it’s the word he uses, it’s the word the GUM uses.
E.g.
Taylor 2.1
Or the GUM 2.2.3
Or 6.2.1
“You are confusing estimating with guessing. A measurement is an estimate – if it wasn’t it there would be no uncertainty. If you remember all the times you’ve studied your Taylor you would know that – it’s the word he uses, it’s the word the GUM uses.”
The only one around here that is confused is you. Does reading the screen of a digital voltmeter involve “estimating” what it says? Is there uncertainty in the value shown on the screen?
Again, interpolation is *not* the same thing as guessing. Nor is it “estimating”.
“best estimate of the quantity and the range within which you are confident the quantity lies.”
Your reading comprehension skills are showing again! Along with your cherry-picking.
The measurement is an ESTIMATE because no measuring device is perfect. It’s not a matter of a person “guessing” at a value, it is a matter of recognizing that no measurement is perfect.
You can’t “estimate” the UNKNOWN. That is what the uncertainty interval is for.
Stop cherry-picking and STUDY what Taylor says: “This statment means, first, that the experimenter’s best estimate for the quantity being concerned is the number x_best and second, that he or she is reasonably confident that the quantity lies between x_best – ẟx and x_best + ẟx.”
The value x_best is the result of the measurement, limited by the precision of the measuring device, the uncertainties associated with the measuring device and the measurement environment, and the measuring protocol. x_best does *NOT* contain information beyond what the measuring device can provide.
Yet when you quote a temperature out to the hundredths digit using a measurement device whose uncertainty is in the tenths digit, you are not “estimating” anything, you are not interpolating anything, nor are you giving a value of x_best – you are GUESSING at the value of an UNKNOWN.
“Does reading the screen of a digital voltmeter involve “estimating” what it says?”
Followed by
“The measurement is an ESTIMATE because no measuring device is perfect.”
Exactly. The measurement is an estimate because it’s not perfect, hence uncertain. I’ll repeat, an estimate is not a guess.
The rest of your comment is just you spending a lot of venom, to agree with me. You’re just to wrapped up in hate to see it.
Why do you *always* forget what the GUM has moved to? A measurement is a stated measured value plus an interval describing the possible values of the measurement.
You just can’t seem to grasp the concept of UNCERTAINT. A measurement is not a estimate of a TRUE VALUE the way you always seem to fall back on. The stated value may be an estimate because of the failings of the measurement device to reach perfection but it should *always* be accompanied by a statement of uncertainty – the range of possible values of the measurement. That makes the measurement *not* an estimate but a MEASUREMENT.
“A measurement is a stated measured value plus an interval describing the possible values of the measurement.”
You keep accusing me of ignoring the GUM, whilst you get their definition wrong. The interval does not describe “possible” values, but
Regardless, the stated value is an estimate. I quoted where the GUM say it. If you say the measurement is y = ± u, then y is the “best estimate of the value attributable to the measurand“.
“The stated value may be an estimate because of the failings of the measurement device to reach perfection but it should *always* be accompanied by a statement of uncertainty”
Which is what I was talking about in the first place. My hypothetical example was for a best estimate of 0.46°C. I could have added this has an uncertainty of 0.05°C. But regardless of the uncertainty 0.46 ± 0.05, is a more useful result than 0.5 ± 0.05°C. The point which you are trying to deflect from is that if 0.46 is your best estimate, than 0.5 is not your best estimate.
“That makes the measurement *not* an estimate but a MEASUREMENT.”
I’m not sure if this is needless sophistry or just wrong. As I see it you are saying the word “measurement” applies to the concept of the stated value and the estimated uncertainty combined. Where as I would say that the measurement is the stated value and the uncertainty is the uncertainty of that measurement.
The GUM defines measurement (B.2.5) as a,
Note – “a value”. Not a range of values, or a value plus a standard uncertainty.
Surveying—a great example of how uncertainty accumulates and “averaging” won’t cure it:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-colorado-a-rectangle
“The hot summer was not the result of unusually strong Antarctic heat.”
WRONG
UAH data shows the Antarctic had a very significant contribution in each month.
Lying or ignorant.. which is it?
You still haven’t figured out which hemisphere the Antarctic is in.
In our case, those records are not very lengthy. Just as well they protect themselves by quoting “the highest temperatures in recorded history” but that is sufficient to fool many!
If you want a longer data set, GISTEMP also shows this summer as being the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere by 0.27°C. These records begin in 1880.
The bottom of the little ice age. How convenient.
Of course anyone who believes that a few hundred monitoring stations, almost all of which were in Europe and the east coast of North America, will give you the earth’s temperature within 0.01C, will believe anything he is told to believe.
ROFLMAO
FAKED, massive URBAN and AIRPORT warming…
… how can a rational mind even submit such garbage.
There is absolutely NO POSSIBILITY that the surface station sites and the way the data is maladjusted, could produce anything remotely resembling reality wrt “global” temperature change over time
Notice that warmist/alarmists prefer the worst temperature source…… PISS!
First I used UAH, and every one complained. Then GISS and you don’t like that. Let’s try NOAA.
At some point you might have to accept that the reason all the data sets show this summer as being a lot warmer than usual, is because maybe the world was a lot warmer than usual.
Switching to global – here’s HadCRUT
And BEST
All I know is my garden, lawn, flower beds and half acre forest never grew so well nor looked so healthy. Fewer bugs to chew up my vegetables. Lots of rain. Invasive species are getting to be a problem but they aren’t cue to climate change but to people bringing them in from other continents. The worst this year in my area is Oriental Bittersweet which is everywhere- a vine you see growing up ever roadside tree and all over my property. I spent a lot of time this summer ripping them out.
Why are you comparing summer temperatures and winter temperatures? Surely you should compare like with like, summer with summer, apples with apples.
Read the article. They are the ones claiming “an unusually strong Antarctic heat wave” boosted the Northern Hemisphere Summer global average. They base this on a graph showing a single summers day, July 9, when the Antarctic had a very high anomaly value.
July 9 in the Antarctic was a winter’s day, not a summer’s day so I ask again – why are you comparing SH winter with NH summer?
For the last time – I am making no comparisons. It’s this article that claims that the above average temperatures in the winter Arctic was responsible for the record breaking summer temperatures. I’m saying it wasn’t.
Areas with >2.5 anomaly in UAH
July… Much of the Antarctic, just south of Greenland, and above north Alaska
August.. Much of Antarctic, above Siberia, a bit of Peru
September… Much of Antarctic, Germany, NW Russia, North of Canada.
Notice anything common.
Oops.. bellboy wrong again . !
Or you could just check the actual UAH data.
Anomalies for SoPol (90S – 60S):
June: +0.41°C
July: +0.81°C
August: -0.18°C
September: + 1.30°C
The average for NH summer – June-August is +0.35°C. Making it the 13th warmest in the UAH data set.
September is not part of NH summer, but at +1.30 it was the second warmest September, the warmest being 1996 at +1.44.
Most of the NH heat was over Germany and NE EU.
It was due to an equal record number of sunshine days caused by a blocking high.
Do you understand the term WEATHER ???
The other warm areas were above northern Canada and in the mid upper Atlantic Ocean…. Oh No !!! let’s all PANIC !!
And yes, there was a strong anomaly over the Antarctic.
And yet, still way COOLER than most of the last 10,000 years.
Get some perspective, and stop supporting this EVIL, DECEITFUL agenda that is trying to destroy western society.
Wasn’t that from the University of Maine’s Reanalyzer projecting weather data, rather than actual measurements?
“0.26°C warmer”
So….. something absolutely NO-ONE could possibly notice.
And also, FAR COOLER than most of the last 10,000 years.
Perhaps you can explain how much warmer it must have been for forests to have growth where now there were glaciers?
Get some perspective, and stop supporting this EVIL, DECEITFUL agenda that is trying to destroy western society.
“So….. something absolutely NO-ONE could possibly notice.”
Obviously people noticed noticed it or you wouldn’t be so desperate to pretend it didn’t happen.
“And also, FAR COOLER than most of the last 10,000 years.”
NO-ONE could possibly notice as no-one has lived through the last 10,000 years.
“Perhaps you can explain how much warmer it must have been for forests to have growth where now there were glaciers?”
Impossible to say without more information. Forests grow next to glaciers. Glaciers grow and recede for different reasons.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. ha. ha. ha .ha!!!!! If you can notice 0.26°C, then you must be a high precision thermometer.
Poor bellboy.. thinks he can notice a difference of 0.26C over a long period.
You really are living in a mindless little fantasy land, aren’t you.
DENIAL of climate history is your only pathetic fall-back to protect your ugly deceitful support for the anti-human AGW agenda.
What’s in it for you, in their drive to destroy western society ?
“Poor bellboy.. thinks he can notice a difference of 0.26C over a long period.”
I sure can. It just requires downloading the data and figuring out when one number is bigger than another.
If you mean, could I notice the difference in two global averages just by feeling the heat – of course not. I don’t live everywhere on the globe at once, let alone in the troposphere.
I manage to live tolerating a 35 F degree increase every day in the summer and manage to handle 15-degree F during the winter, my god how do I live!!!
You are making a total fool of yourself.
Now tell me how easy it was to live in the US during the summer of 1936 when the average temperature beat the 1901 record by about 1.5°F.
You presumably are not going to be worried if a new little ice age causes temperatures to drop by a degree or two. Or even a new ice age maybe 10°C colder. Still nothing compared with the swings you cope with every day.
Another idiot that thinks forests grow under glaciers.
Hilarious. !
Once again bnice can’t be bothered to actually read what I said, rather than take cheep shots.
Trees do not grow under glaciers. They grow by the side of glaciers, and if the glacier expands they are covered by them. In most cases the trees are completely destroyed, but in some cases parts of the trees are preserved. When the glacier recedes this can reveal the remains of the trees.
He is being factually SARCASTIC too bad your inability to get his point understood is why you make silly replies.
One issue with the NOAA polar satellites (the data sources for the UAH) is that the sampling is highly nonuniform because the gridding used is fixed at 2.5° x 2.5°. This means that the area of the grid trapezoids varies as a function of latitude (by a lot). At high latitudes the grids will be sampled several times per day (and above 85° they overlap so no data is reported for the poles). By 30° latitude several days can elapse between samplings; low latitudes are worse. They certainly cannot capture daily high and lows over the entire globe.
This means that weather changes lasting several days at low latitudes can be missed. It is instructive to note that the regions in the UAH that always show the highest variations are the high latitudes.
Tavg is a joke from the start. You can have one site’s Tmax go up while another has it’s Tmin go up and get similar growth anomalies. Two different sites can have vastly different temperatures (NH/SH) and have the same anomaly for different weather reasons. Then trying to say a miilikelvin is a huge change just makes me laugh.
Then alarmists wonder why the public thinks the whole shebang is not worth their time?
Or just playing the climate crisis card to deflect attention from unfavorable news coverage and suck up to the ruling Party.
The IRS says Microsoft may owe about $29 billion in back taxes. Microsoft disagrees (yahoo.com)
https://electroverse.info/europes-arctic-blast-1-5m-of-snow-solar-wind-scientists-grand-solar-minimum/
We’re gonna need a bigger gas, coal & nuclear generator base
https://climatechangedispatch.com/the-climate-war-is-over-china-won/
I think it’s fair to say, the West is doomed on its current trajectory
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/10/12/ofgem-sounds-alarm-energy-debt-hits-2-6bn/
Ofgems solution to costly electricity costs driving consumer debt due in large to renewable subsidies, levies, CfDs etc, charge those consumers more – meanwhile those billions in profits announced in summer continue
The “Fear” part is definitely from the MSM.
Frankly, the Fact Check terminology-format-methodology used during the pandemic leaves me a bit disturbed because it was used for political narrative management and control during the pandemic. …….that is political expediency not truth.
Why use it in WUWT? Why not simply rebut those the false climate change claims scientifically one at a time (which I believe has already been done on WUWT for the most part) and then give a summary of the rebuttals. So instead of “Fact Check” use “Summary of scientifically rebutted Climate change claims”. Let the authority come from the scientific process not fact checking.
We don’t want to give the appearance of duplicating narrative management and control for political purposes.
I am sure that the temptation is to go political, which is ok but not for a science blog. This is especially true when many who comment have little to offer scientifically and who oppose the climate change movement politically…. myself included.
The Green Regimers don’t care about science or facts so fact checking won’t impact them. It’s the vast majority of us lay individuals who need to understand what is going on with all the claims about climate and how science is supposed to work.
W
The term “Fact Check” doesn’t need to be political.
True, the MSM and social media has used it as a cover for propaganda, but it’s a good term.
Why surrender yet another word or phrase to the Left?
IMO if you really want to know if it was as hot (or hotter) than now decades ago, you ought to talk to people who lived in those times. My mom has many stories about how miserably hot it could be in summer and how she and my uncles would take their mattresses downstairs and sleep on the screened in porch.
I spend a lot of time around elderly people (as part of my job) and I’ve heard many more accounts of past hellish heat and stifling humidity. All in a time where almost no one had AC and you were lucky if you had an electric fan.
With regards to AC, personally I think young people today are so totally spoiled that if they step outside maybe they really do feel like they are going to pass out due to the heat. In past pre-AC times, people were more acclimated to the heat and just learned to deal with it. They did farming and yard work early in the morning and late in the evening if possible (like Spain with its famous siestas to avoid having to work in the heat of the day). Many people had “summer” kitchens in their homes – usually an attached room that could be closed off from the rest of the house to cook in without heating up the house. Windows in homes were designed for natural ventilation.
I remember when I was a kid I would go outside and play in the morning, come in and cool down for the afternoon, and then go out again after dinner, find my friends and play until it got dark.
Therefore, this tiny fraction of a degree “hottest eva” summer is essentially an illusion. When you are born and raised with AC at home, at work, in the car, etc it will naturally feel a heck of a lot hotter when you do have to go outside.
Why is it all WAPO or NYT (what happened to the Grauniad and the BBC)?
The GBR corals tell the story-
Climate Change Crisis: The Great Barrier Reef Loses Half of Its Coral Population (msn.com)
We’re all doomed!
Except…
There was also a record so-called ‘ozone hole’ this last September — earlier, deeper, and more wide spread. What is that all about? It is usually associated with very cold stratospheric temperatures.
Or a great increase in stratosphere water vapour. 😉